Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5079969" data-attributes="member: 4937">Maybe we are talking past each other here, but how is that a problem of closed rulesets particularly?  In an open rules set, you still tend to fall into a game of "What does the DM/rule designer like?" and, if the designer is a fan of Japanese weaponry, then you stop thinking about using English broadswords.  If the rules are narrow and your play goals little more than 'optimize my character for combat', you are getting highly constrained either way.I'm at a loss to see how that is a big problem.  Isn't that how the real world works?  In this case, it is the referee's responcibility to craft sufficiently interesting scenarios that new tactical options are presented to the player.   So, maybe shoving an opponent doesn't seem as practical as trying to hit them with a sword, but wait a minute... we are standing right next to a pit.  Maybe in this case attempting a push is worth it even if I don't know what the rules for pushing are and in particular even if such a stunt is not explicitly defined by the rules. There are two traps here.  If the proposition relates to a rule not explicitly defined, the player is conciously or unconsciously constrained both from thinking of the proposition and from attempting it.   If the player doesn't know what rules are defined, they are much more likely to try to attempt a push than if they know that pushing isn't expressly covered.   On the other hand, the DM has a responcibility to try to say 'Yes' here.  If rules for pushing aren't expressly covered, he has a responcibility to smith rules for such a stunt on the fly.  Of course, what the DM wants in this situation is a game system that is broad and flexible enough that coming up with a good rule for a case not in the system based on the system offers is easy, so that from the perspective of the player the player never knows or cares whether its a rule or a house rule being applied in this situation.Or not.  All you really get knowing the rules is a more transparent and predictable outcome.  It's not necessarily a more successful outcome than one you get from thinking out of the box.   Your bias in assuming 'predictable' = 'better chance of success' indicates to me that your stance is informed by having alot of creativity squashed with too much 'saying no'.  I think you are wrong.  I think the second concern only seems to evaporate solely because you constrain yourself to only make propositions that are couched in the terms of the rules as you understand them.  You self-limit yourself from any unpredictableness.  You also end up unless you are careful in a highly antagonistic stance, because if what you desire from the game is predictablity, then you end up instead of making propositions to the DM, you make demands of the DM.   That is, you instead of stating an intention, end up stating the desired result, and in my experience, players that state desired results instead of proposed actions get really angry when a) the results don't match their intended results and b) the DM is not willing to explain to them why the mysterious results have occured.   Essentially, when you move from proposition to goal, you are demanding of the DM that he resolve a particular proposition in the way you expect and desire it to happen.  That demand is inherently antagonistic.All games have gamist artifacts, whether open or closed.  Not knowing what those artifacts are can actually help avoid them.Why? You've still got 12' of open space behind you.  Or, for that matter, if you put your back to the pillar, you've got 12' of open space in front of you.  Interpretting the action as 'squeezing' is silly.   Where we put the grid is entirely arbitrary.   The grid can center anywhere.  It's only a conveinent metagame device, and where it gets in the way it should be disposed of.  Close systems do that much better than open systems.I didn't feel the clarification was needed, but yes, obviously.  Clearly, jumping out of a 7 story window has a different common sense expectation if you are a 'normal human', than if you are a 'super hero'.  If we are explicitly trying to emulate the genera rules of a 'action hero movie', then certain things work by convention that are asking for trouble if the simulation is 'normal people in extraordinary situations'.I believe it is the DM's job to communicate any misunderstanding about what is common sense regardless of genera or rules setting.  There are all sorts of ways to do this, some of which simply involve providing the appropriate in game dressing of the setting so that it is recognizable as 'gritty' or 'comedic' or whatever.</blockquote>

Verification